ReviewNano letters2026
Revisiting MOF-Derived Single-Atom Electrocatalysts: Limitations, Characterizations, and Design Strategies.
Review in Nano letters, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-atom sites (SASs) and their electrocatalysts offer outstanding catalytic activity and metal efficiency. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), with their tunable and multifunctional architectures, serve as ideal precursors for SASs, enabling atomic-level dispersion. However, current research often overlooks critical ambiguities in SAS definitions, intrinsic limitations, and characterization reliability. Moreover, prevalent destructive treatments, such as pyrolysis or sulfidation, inevitably compromise framework integrity, raising concerns regarding the trade-off between structural designability and conductivity. Accordingly, this Mini-Review critically revisits MOF-derived SASs by scrutinizing synthesis limitations and emphasizing the quantitative assessment of atomic utilization efficiency. Representative examples of emerging framework-retaining strategies, including ligand and defect engineering, are discussed to illustrate opportunities for preserving MOF advantages. Finally, future directions are proposed, focusing on dynamic structural reconstruction and operando validation to simultaneously enhance activity, stability, and scalability for practical energy conversion applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.